Chris Lock
Second Unit
- Joined
- Jul 1, 1999
- Messages
- 258
I'd like to get the Friday the 13th series with all references to violence removed.
it brings to question the idea of utilizing censored material when there are so many alternative options with similar themes and without the "offensive" material.
Exactly. "Passenger 57", for example, is a very violent movie, with or without references to necrophilia, that is IMO not suitable for children. If one were to edit out the violence, it might be more suitable, but the whole point of the movie is to be violent, so by editing it out, what's left isn't the same movie at all (and at a running time of around 80 minutes or so already, there wouldn't be much left ).
If people want to do it, that's fine, but I would think that there must be better and more exciting movies that could be shown instead.
To me, it has little to do with free speech, it's more about appreciation of movies.
/Mike
Larry Seno Jr. wrote:
...if you are OAR...
I know I'm definitely OAR. Haven't had my arms chopped off to fit in a narrower screen. I'd like to stay that way too. I'm kind of a tall guy, and I don't like the idea of having my legs broken to fit into a casket when I'm dead and gone. I am OAR, and I intend to stay that way! Though there seems to be this "widescreen" sort of thing trying to happen around my midsection. :frowning:
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
I might have a little more respect for "director's intent" if the directors themselves did as well. But seeing as how many of their films show up on television edited the exact same way, I dont in this regard.
There is a difference here. On television films are edited for time and content for several reasons.
1) This is a public exhibition, anyone flipping channels can come across this and neither the director nor the studio want's to be sued for exposing minors to inappropriate material.
2) Commercials. Basically, making money.
3) If they put the uncut movie on the air, no one would buy the movie. they'd just tape it off tv (except for us OAR nuts)
The difference comes in that with home video, you are *paying* to see the film. As such, if it offends you, you have no one to blame but yourself for not finding out more about the film before purchasing or renting it. The format obsolves the Director and Studio from legal responsibility.
I would suppose if you own a legal copy of a movie, you can do what you want with it.
not quite.
U.S. copyright law grants copyright holders the exclusive right to control, among other things, copying, distribution, and preparation of derivative works of their copyrighted material. the so-called First Sale doctrine allows an owner of a legal copy to re-sell that copy; it creates an exception to the distribution right, but only the distribution right. copying that work and preparing derivative works based on that copy are not allowable.
here, the DVD technology, since it works on-the-fly, is likely legal (see my posts in this thread for an explanation). the VHS items, however, appear to be copies that they edit themselves and then send to you. if done without permission, this is very likely a copyright infringment.
DJ
An edited version of Braveheart? Would that even make sense?
Actually, according to Mel Gibson in the DVD commentary, the final torture scene WAS heavily edited. He wanted to show the blood and guts but test screenings thankfully made him change his mind.